Voice of sanity amidst the lunacy of the Bush Administration!!!

[97silverlsc]

Federal Judge Orders Halt to Warrantless Wiretapping
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/...&en=a4e06f77e4a3c6a0&ei=5094&partner=homepage
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: August 17, 2006


DETROIT (AP) -- A federal judge ruled Thursday that the government's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it.

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit became the first judge to strike down the National Security Agency's program, which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy as well as the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.

''Plaintiffs have prevailed, and the public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution,'' Taylor wrote in her 43-page opinion.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of journalists, scholars and lawyers who say the program has made it difficult for them to do their jobs. They believe many of their overseas contacts are likely targets of the program, which involves secretly listening to conversations between people in the U.S. and people in other countries.

The government argued that the program is well within the president's authority, but said proving that would require revealing state secrets.

The ACLU said the state-secrets argument was irrelevant because the Bush administration had already publicly revealed enough information about the program for Taylor to rule on the case.

''By holding that even the president is not above the law, the court has done its duty,'' said Ann Beeson, the ACLU's associate legal director and the lead attorney for the plaintiffs.

The NSA had no immediate comment on the ruling.

Taylor dismissed a separate claim by the ACLU over data-mining of phone records by the NSA. She said not enough had been publicly revealed about that program to support the claim and further litigation could jeopardize state secrets.

Beeson predicted the government would appeal the ruling and request that the order to halt the program be postponed while the case makes its way through the system. She said the ACLU had not yet decided whether it would oppose such a postponement.

 

[Frogman]

Yeah... That'll stop 'em dead in their tracks.

 

[fossten]

Ah. A Carter appointee who thinks she's Justice-in-Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces. Typical Phil who celebrates every opportunity to make our country less safe.

Don't worry, the 6th Circuit will reverse her.

 

[MonsterMark]

Yep, the 6th Circuit will slap down this 'legislator from the bench' lib appointed by Carter who does not care a lick about national security. Thank God the 6th Circuit does. They will rule in favor of national security trumping the interests of the liberal left that is trying so desperately to neuter this country, and in the process get us all killed. Just watch what happens if Russ Feingold wins the Presidency. Our enemies will have a field day.

 

[MonsterMark]

Voice of sanity amidst the lunacy of the Bush Administration!!!

Oh, Phil, your headline is sooo precious.

Reverse the message and you will have finally gotten one right.

Voice of insanity amidst the competency of the Bush Administration.

 

[fossten]

I've been hearing a lot of talk about this lately, and I can't say it doesn't make sense anymore. It seems that when people continue to hate for long periods of time, they start to lose their mental faculties. It appears that this is happening, not only amidst the Islamic Fascists, but also with the liberal left of this country and this board. Bush hatred is literally driving these poor people loony.

 

[formerknown]

This "ruling" is no victory- at least not for American security. May I remind you that the very recent attempted British airline disaster that could have mirrored 9/11 was stopped in its tracks thanks to wiretapping and eavesdropping.

 

[MediumD]

I think you might be able to guess what I think about the illegal wiretapping issue.

I would like to live in a country where I could talk to who the hell ever I please.

Next, are we going to have random searches of cars at checkpoints near possible targets for terrorism? You could make the same argument that it's for security..

If so, the terrorists have won.

 

[fossten]

I think you might be able to guess what I think about the illegal wiretapping issue.

I would like to live in a country where I could talk to who the hell ever I please.

Next, are we going to have random searches of cars at checkpoints near possible targets for terrorism? You could make the same argument that it's for security..

If so, the terrorists have won.

I've got news for you: The President of the United States has no interest whatsoever in peeking at all your porn site memberships or your 900 number calls. If you bothered to read any information about the NSA program you'd KNOW that it was geared toward terrorism.

If you're still paranoid, should we be concerned about your contacts with Al Qaeda?

The terrorists will only win if your ilk continue to undermine our effort to prevent another 9/11.

 

[MonsterMark]

If you bothered to read any information about the NSA program you'd KNOW that it was geared toward terrorism.

Come on now Fossten. You KNOW that the keyword terms Epsilon is searching for are words like, Lincoln, MarkVIII, babes, Phil, mom, porno....

 

[fossten]

Come on now Fossten. You KNOW that the keyword terms Epsilon is searching for are words like, Lincoln, MarkVIII, babes, Phil, mom, porno....

Are you saying that Phil's mom is a porn star?

 

[MonsterMark]

Are you saying that Phil's mom is a porn star?

LMAO!!! Sure looks that way doesn't it.

 

[fossten]

Anybody besides me aware that the lawyers for the ACLU in this case are ALL MUSLIMS, several of whom have ties to HEZBOLLAH???

What do you say to that, Phil?

Hmmm?

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2006/01/whos_behind_the.html

By the way, for this lawsuit to be valid, it would be necessary to prove that someone was actually harmed by the NSA program. No such evidence exists. This decision is a political farce committed by a judicial hack not fit to sit on any bench.

 

[Calabrio]

 

[MediumD]

I know what the NSA is doing, and how they're doing it (simple datamining,) and since I don't think I've ever even called anyone outside of North America, I also know that chances of the NSA listening in on me are incredibly small. That is irrelevant, they are wiretapping American citizens without bothering to get a warrant.

Freedom is more important than security, period.

 

[Calabrio]

I know what the NSA is doing, and how they're doing it (simple datamining,) and since I don't think I've ever even called anyone outside of North America, I also know that chances of the NSA listening in on me are incredibly small. That is irrelevant, they are wiretapping American citizens without bothering to get a warrant.

Freedom is more important than security, period.

I think you're mixing up different programs and confusing them all together.

This lawsuit deals with the NSA listening in on INTERNATIONAL phone calls between people, on of which has a KNOWN connection to Al-Queda.

It's not data mining.
It's not taking place between two citizens within our borders.

It's international calls between someone within the country and someone outside the country, one of which is a KNOWN to have a connection to Al-Queda.

One more time- ONE OF THE PARTIES IS INTERNATIONAL and of KNOWN RELATION TO AL-QUEDA.

Can I be more clear?

 

[MediumD]

I am aware it is supposed to be for international communications. It's the "known connection to Al Qaeda" part that is the problem. If there's a reasonable reason to believe someone is talking with Al Qaeda, the NSA can get a warrant without a problem.

 

[fossten]

I am aware it is supposed to be for international communications. It's the "known connection to Al Qaeda" part that is the problem. If there's a reasonable reason to believe someone is talking with Al Qaeda, the NSA can get a warrant without a problem.

Wrong. This has been discussed at length, and the NSA needs an opportunity to act quickly, especially in cases where there may be an imminent attack or information that could lead to a breakthrough which might prevent an attack. In that case it would be detrimental to wait for the FISA court to provide a warrant.

By the way, do you understand that FISA doesn't stand for "Federal Domestic Warrantless Surveillance of American Citizens?"

Look up what it stands for and get back to me.

 

[Calabrio]

I am aware it is supposed to be for international communications. It's the "known connection to Al Qaeda" part that is the problem. If there's a reasonable reason to believe someone is talking with Al Qaeda, the NSA can get a warrant without a problem.

No, they have to have a reason.. But that's besides the point.

The fact is, the NSA doesn't NEED to when opperating under the powers of the President to PROTECT THE COUNTRY, especially after he's been granted the power by the congress necessary to combat a war.

The fact is, Congress can not pass a law limiting the power of the executive branch. That's unconstitutional. And the congress has passed a few laws that attempt to limit the executive offices' constitutional powers, such as the War Powers Act and FISA. The executive office has refrained from challenging these laws to avoid the constitutional showdown. And the Legislative branch has refrained from attempting to enforce their unconstitutional laws, to avoid a showdown as well. They'd just assume not challenge it in the court.

So, whether the public is comfortable or not, this program is absolutely legal, constitutinally protected, and has the tacet authorization of the congress just in case.

The Constitution isn't a suicide pact. The government is authorized to use any measure necessary to protect the country.

And the counter balance to that is, if you don't like the policy, you can elect new officials. The elections are every four years (or 2 years and six years), and that can't be changed.

 

[97silverlsc]

Are you saying that Phil's mom is a porn star?

I expect nothing less from a couple of neocon repugs that need to be sent back to the screw factory to be rethreaded.

 

[MediumD]

The fact is, Congress can not pass a law limiting the power of the executive branch. That's unconstitutional.

And the counter balance to that is, if you don't like the policy, you can elect new officials. The elections are every four years (or 2 years and six years), and that can't be changed.

Why can't the elections be changed/eliminated? In a president controlled government that does not recognize the constitution like you seem to be in favor of, the president could just say "in the interest of national security, we're getting rid of x election."

Have you ever heard the concept of a 'balance of power?' It's this crazy idea that one person can't just do whatever they feel like doing. Congress makes the laws, the president executes them, the judicial branch reviews laws and interprets the constitution.

 

[Calabrio]

Why can't the elections be changed/eliminated? In a president controlled government that does not recognize the constitution like you seem to be in favor of, the president could just say "in the interest of national security, we're getting rid of x election."

Because that is completely unconstitutional. One of the foundations of American democracy is the fact that elections are regular and scheduled. I KNOW we'll be voting for the next President in 2008. And again in 2012. And again in 2016. I KNOW this. If that fails to happen, we have a massive constitutional crisiss and the system begins to fall apart.

We continued to have elections during World War 2.

Have you ever heard the concept of a 'balance of power?' It's this crazy idea that one person can't just do whatever they feel like doing. Congress makes the laws, the president executes them, the judicial branch reviews laws and interprets the constitution.

I'm well aware of the "balance of power." And the fact that congress attempts to pass laws limiting the constitutional power of the executive branch is in direct violation of that very principle. It is an example of the legislative branch attempting to EXPAND it's power and weaken the executive branch.

 

[fossten]

I'm well aware of the "balance of power." And the fact that congress attempts to pass laws limiting the constitutional power of the executive branch is in direct violation of that very principle. It is an example of the legislative branch attempting to EXPAND it's power and weaken the executive branch.

I agree. MediumD's got it backwards, mostly thanks to the MSM. Bush knew that Congress had no right to pass those FISA laws, but he and Congress had an unspoken deal not to create a showdown during the war. That is, until the New York Times screwed everything up by exposing the program.

Now you have Hezbollah lawyers filing suit and getting a judgment from a renegade judge in Michigan who's decided to elect herself President of the United States.

THAT'S where the imbalance of power is, not where MediumD thinks it is.

 

[Calabrio]

And this notion that the Supreme Court is the ultimate judge or law is silly. This basically means that the Supreme Court has checks over both the Executive and Legislative branches, but the no one has the ability to check the judges.

This is not the case. The Judicial branch has been involved in the most blatant powergrab of any of the branches. But I guess that's what happens when we have lawyers teaching lawyers, who are elected into office, make laws, and then interpret the law on the bench without virtually any checks and balance.. Needless to say, lawyers keep getting more and more powerful.

 

[MediumD]

This judge did not elect herself president. She did her job of ruling on the case. That's what judges are there for.

If you want the president to be able to spy on whoever, whenever, for whatever reason, you're living in the wrong country. The system has thusfar worked as intended, with the judge ruling that the NSA program was unconstitutional.